Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (Inter Insigniores)

Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith
Approved for Publication by His Holiness
Pope Paul VI
October 15, 1976

INTRODUCTION

The Role of Women in Modern Society and the Church

Among the characteristics that mark our present age, Pope John XXIII
indicated, in his Encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11, 1963, "the part
that women are now taking in public life ... This is a development that is
perhaps of swifter growth among Christian nations but it is also happening
extensively, if more slowly, among nations that are heirs to different
traditions and imbued with a different culture." Along the same lines, the
Second Vatican Council, enumerating in its Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes
the forms of discrimination touching upon the basic rights of the person which
must be overcome and eliminated as being contrary to God's plan, gives first
place to discrimination based upon sex. The resulting equality will secure the
building up of a world that is not leveled out and uniform but harmonious and
unified, if men and women contribute to it their own resources and dynamism as
Pope Paul VI recently stated.

In the life of the Church herself, as history shows us, women have played a
decisive role and accomplished tasks of outstanding value. One has only to think
of the foundresses of the great religious families such as Saint Clare and Saint
Teresa of Avila. The latter, moreover, and Saint Catherine of Siena, have left
writings so rich in spiritual doctrine that Pope Paul VI has included them among
the Doctors of the Church. Nor could one forget the great number of women who
have consecrated themselves to the Lord for the exercise of charity or for the
missions, and the Christian wives who have had a profound influence on their
families, particularly for the passing on of the faith to their children.

But our age gives rise to increased demands. "Since in our time women
have an ever more active share in the whole life of society, it is very
important that they participate more widely also in the various sectors of the
church's apostolate." This charge of the Second Vatican Council has already
set in motion the whole process of change now taking place: these various
experiences of course need to come to maturity. But as Pope Paul VI also
remarked, a very large number of Christian communities are already benefiting
from the apostolic commitment of women. Some of these women are called to take
part in councils set up for pastoral reflection, at the diocesan or parish level; and the Apostolic See has brought women into some of its working bodies.

For some years now various Christian communities stemming from the 16th
century Reformation or of later origin have been admitting women to the pastoral
office on a par with men. This initiative has led to petitions and writing s by
members of these communities and similar groups, directed towards making this
admission a general thing; it has also led to contrary reactions. This therefore
constitutes an ecumenical problem and the Catholic Church must make her thinking
known on it, all the more because in various sectors of opinion the question
has been asked whether she too could not modify her discipline and admit women
to priestly ordination. A number of Catholic theologians have even posed this
question publicly, evoking studies not only in the sphere of exegesis, patrology
and Church history but also in the field of the history of institutions and
customs, of sociology and of psychology. The various arguments capable of clarifying this important problem have been submitted to a critical examination.
As we are dealing with a debate which classical theology scarcely touched upon,
the current argumentation runs the risk of neglecting essential elements.

For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received form the Holy See and
echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of November 30,
1976, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary
to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not
consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred
Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position
of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive
value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening
understanding of the respective roles of men and women.

I - THE CHURCH'S CONSTANT TRADITION

The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can
be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects in the first centuries,
especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to
women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers who
considered it as unacceptable in the Church. It is true that in the writings of
the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavorable to
women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any
influence on their pastoral activity and still less on their spiritual
direction. But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed - especially in the canonical documents of the
Antiochian and Egyptian traditions - this essential reason, namely, that by
calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the
Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the
Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.

The same conviction animates medieval theology even if the Scholastic
doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the data of faith, often present
arguments on this point that modern thought would have difficulty in admitting
or would even rightly reject. Since that period and up to our own time, it can
be said that the question has not been raised again, for the practice has
enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance.

The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of
the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order
to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was
not challenged. But each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest
itself, it witnessed to the Church's desire to conform to the model left to her
by the Lord.

The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the
East. Their unanimity on this point is all the more remarkable since in many
other questions their discipline admits of a great diversity. At the present
time these same Churches refuse to associate themselves with request directed
towards securing the accession of women to priestly ordination.

II - THE ATTITUDE OF CHRIST

Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve. If he acted
in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his
attitude towards women was quite different from that of his milieu, and he
deliberately and courageously broke with it.

For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples, Jesus converses
publicly with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state
of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from hemorrhages (cf. Mt
9:20-22), he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the
Pharisee (cf. Lk 7:37 ff); and by pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means
to show that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than that
of a man (cf. Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in
order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with
regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9).

In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but
also by a group of women: "Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven
demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna and
several others who provided for them out of their own resources" (Lk
8:2-3). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to
the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women who
were the first to have the privilege of seeing the Risen Lord and it was they
who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles
themselves (cf. Mt 28:7-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18), in order to prepare the
latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.

It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious. This
is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before us go
beyond the obvious. In order to reach the ultimate meaning of the mission of
Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the
texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognized that we have here a number or
convergent indications that make all the more remarkable the fact that Jesus did
not entrust the apostolic charge to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable role is
emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic
ministry. This fact was to lead the Fathers to present her as the example or
Christ's will in this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the
beginning of the 13th century, "Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed
in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her
but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven."

III - THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES

The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards
women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place in the little circle of those
gathered in the Upper Room after the Lord's Ascension (cf. Acts 1:14), it was not
she who was called to enter the College of the Twelve at the time of the
election that resulted in the choice of Matthias: those who were put forward
were two disciples whom the Gospels do not even mention.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men and women (cf. Acts 2:1; 1-14), yet the proclamation of the fulfillment of the prophecies in
Jesus was made only by "Peter and the Eleven" (Acts 2:14).

When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world, the
preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman civilization
impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes regretfully. They could
therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on women, if they had not been
convinced that their duty of fidelity to the Lord on this point. In the
Hellenistic world, the cult of a number of pagan divinities was entrusted to
priestesses. In fact, the Greeks did not share the ideas of the Jews: although
their philosophers taught the inferiority of women, historians nevertheless
emphasize the existence of a certain movement for the advancement of women
during the Imperial period. In fact, we know from the book of the Acts and from
the Letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked with the Apostles for the
Gospel (cf. Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude
in the final salutations of the Letters. Some of them often exercised an
important influence on conversions: Priscilla, Lydia and others; especially
Priscilla, who took it on herself to complete the instruction of Apollos (cf. Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae
(cf. Rom 16:1).
All these facts manifest within the apostolic Church a considerable evolution
vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless, at no time was there a question
of conferring ordination on these women.

In the Pauline Letters, exegetes of authority have noted a difference between
two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes indiscriminately "my fellow
workers" (Rom 16:3; Phil 4:2-3) when referring to men and women helping him
in his apostolate in one way or another; but he reserves the title "God's
fellow workers" (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 1 Thes 3:1) to Apollos, Timothy and himself,
thus designated because they are directly set apart for the apostolic ministry
and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite of the so important role played
by women on the day of the Resurrection, their collaboration was not extended by
Saint Paul to the official and public proclamation of the message, since this
proclamation belongs exclusively to the apostolic mission.

IV - PERMANENT VALUE OF THE ATTITUDES OF JESUS AND THE APOSTLES

Could the Church today depart from this attitude of Jesus and the Apostles,
which has been considered as normative by the whole of tradition up to our own
day? Various arguments have been put forward in favor of a positive reply to
this question, and these must now be examined.

It has been claimed in particular that the attitude of Jesus and the Apostles
is explained by the influence of their milieu and their times. It is said that
if Jesus did not entrust to women and not even to his Mother a ministry
assimilating them to the Twelve, this as because historical circumstances did
not permit him to do so. No one however has ever proved - and it is clearly
impossible to prove - that this attitude is inspired only by social and cultural
reasons. As we have seen, an examination of the Gospels shows on the contrary
that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the
discriminations practiced with regard to women. One therefore cannot maintain
that, by not calling women to enter the group of the Apostles, Jesus was simply
letting himself be guided by reasons of expediency. For all the more reason,
social and cultural conditioning did not hold back the Apostles working in the
Greek milieu, where the same forms of discrimination did not exist.

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to
see today in some of the prescription of Saint Paul concerning women and upon
the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it
must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the
period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance
such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor
11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women "to speak" in the assemblies
(cf. 1 Cor
14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:12) is of a different nature and exegetes define its meaning
in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right which he elsewhere recognizes as
possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition
solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For
Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (cf. 1
Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the
most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and
women, as children of God in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason
for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he
shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.

But over and above these objections taken from the history of apostolic
times, those who support the legitimacy of change in the matter turn to the
Church's practice in her sacramental discipline. It has been noted, in our day
especially, to what extent the Church is conscious of possessing a certain power
over the sacraments, even though they were instituted by Christ. She has used
this power down the centuries in order to determine their signs and the
conditions of their administration: recent decisions of Popes Pius XII and Paul
VI are proof of this. However, it must be emphasized that this power, which is a
real one, has definite limits. As Pope Pius XII recalled: "The Church has
no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ
the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be
maintained in the sacramental sign." This was already the teaching of the
council of Trent, which declared: "In the Church there has always existed
this power, that in the administration of the sacraments, provided that their
substance remains unaltered, she can lay down or modify what she considers more
fitting either for the benefit of those who receive them or for respect towards
those same sacraments, according to varying circumstances, times or
places."

Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the sacramental signs are not
conventional ones. Not only is it true that in many respects, they are natural
signs because they respond to the deep symbolism of actions and things, but they
are more than this: they are principally meant to link the person of every
period to the supreme Event of the history of salvation, in order to enable that
person to understand, through all the Bible's wealth of pedagogy and symbolism,
what grace they signify and produce. For example, the sacrament of the Eucharist
is not only a fraternal meal, but at the same time the memorial which makes
present and actual Christ's sacrifice and his offering by the Church. Again, the
priestly ministry is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of
the functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of the
powers related to those functions. Adaptation to civilizations and times
therefore cannot abolish, on essential points, the sacramental reference to
constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself.

In the final analysis it is the Church, through the voice of her Magisterium,
that, in these various domains, decides what can change and what must remain
immutable. When she judges that she cannot accept certain changes, it is because
she knows that she is bound by Christ's manner of acting. Her attitude, despite
appearances, is therefore not on of archaism but of fidelity: it can be truly
understood only in this light. The Church makes pronouncements in virtue of the
Lord's promise and the presence of the Holy Spirit, in order to proclaim better
the mystery of Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich
content.

This practice of the Church therefore has a normative character: in the fact
of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of an unbroken
tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the East and in the
West and alert to repress abuses immediately. This norm, based on Christ's
example, has been and is still observed because it is considered to conform to
God's plan for his Church.

THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST

Having recalled the Church's norm and the basis thereof, it seems useful and
opportune to illustrate this norm by showing the profound fittingness that
theological reflection discovers between the proper nature of the sacrament of
Order, with its specific reference to the mystery of Christ and the fact that
only men have been called to receive priestly ordination. It is not a question
here of bringing forward a demonstrative argument but of clarifying this
teaching by the analogy of faith.

The Church's constant teaching, repeated and clarified by the Second Vatican
Council and again recalled by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and by the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Declaration of June 24, 1973,
declares that the bishop or the priest, in the exercise of his ministry does not
act in his own name, in persona propria: he represents Christ, who acts through
him: "the priest truly acts in the place of Christ," as Saint Cyprian
already wrote in the third century. It is this ability to represent Christ that
Saint Paul considered as characteristic of his apostolic function (cf. 2 Cor
5:20; Gal 4:14). The supreme expression of this representation is found in the
altogether special form it assumes in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is
the source and center of the Church's unity, the sacrificial meal in which the
People of God are associated in the sacrifice of Christ: the priest who alone
has the power to perform it, then acts not only through the effective power
conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi, taking the role of Christ,
to the point of being his very image, when he pronounces the words of
consecration.

The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature: the priest is
a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination
received but a sign that must be perceptible and which the faithful must be able
to recognize with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon
natural signs, on symbols imprinted upon the human psychology: "Sacramental
signs," says Saint Thomas, "represent what they signify by natural
resemblance." The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for
things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally,
there would not be this "natural resemblance" which must exist between
Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a
case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.

Christ is of course the first-born of humanity, of women as well as men: the
unity which he re-established after sins is such that there are no more
distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all are
one in Christ Jesus (cf. Gal 3:28). Nevertheless, the Incarnation of the Word
took place according to the male sex: this is indeed a question of fact and this
fact while not implying an alleged natural superiority of man over woman, cannot
be disassociated from the economy of salvation: it is indeed in harmony with the
entirety of God's plan as God himself has revealed it, and of which the mystery
of the Covenant is the nucleus.

For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union with him to
which they are called, - in short, the Covenant - took on, from the Old
Testament Prophets onwards, the privileged form of a nuptial mystery: for God
the Chosen People is seen as his ardently loved spouse. Both Jewish and
Christian tradition has discovered the depth of this intimacy of love by reading
and rereading the Song of Songs; the divine Bridegroom will remain faithful even
when the Bride betrays his love, when Israel is unfaithful to God (cf. Hos 1-3;
Jer 2). When the "fullness of time" (Gal 4:4) comes, the Word, the Son
of God, takes on flesh in order to establish and seal the new and eternal Covenant in his blood, which will be shed for many so that sins may be forgiven.
His death will gather together again the scattered children of God; from his
pierced side will be born the Church, as Eve was born from Adam's side. At that
time there is fully and eternally accomplished the nuptial mystery proclaimed
and hymned in the Old Testament: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church is his
Bride, whom he loves because he has gained her by his blood and made her
glorious, holy and without blemish, and henceforth he is inseparable from her.
This nuptial theme, which is developed from the Letters of Saint Paul onwards (cf.
2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-23) to the writings of Saint John (cf. especially Jn 3:29;
Rev 19:7,9), is present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom's friends
must not fast as long as he is with them (cf. Mk 2:19); the Kingdom of Heaven is
like a king who gave a feast for his son's wedding (cf. Mt 22:1-14). It is
through this Scriptural language, all interwoven with symbols, and which
expresses and affects man and woman in their profound identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a mystery which of itself is
unfathomable.

That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man. And therefore,
unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of
Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character or
ordination in which Christ himself, the author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom
and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising his ministry of salvation -
which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - his role (this is the
original sense of the word "persona") must be taken by a man. This
does not stem from any personal superiority of the latter in the order of values
but only from a difference of fact on the level of functions and service.

Could one say that, since Christ is now in the heavenly condition, from now
on it is a matter of indifference whether he be represented by a man or by a
woman, since "at the resurrection men and women do not marry" (Mt
22:30)? But this text does not mean that the distinction between man and woman,
insofar as it determines the identity proper to the person, is suppressed in the
glorified state; what holds for us holds also for Christ. It is indeed evident
that in human beings the difference of sex exercises an important influence,
much deeper than, for example, ethnic differences: the latter do not affect the
human person as intimately as the difference of sex, which is directly ordained
both for the communion of persons and for the generation of human beings. In
Biblical Revelation this revelation is the effect of God's will from the
beginning: "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27).

However, it will perhaps be further objected that the priest, especially when
he presides at the liturgical and sacramental functions, equally represents the
church: he acts in her name with "the intention of doing what she
does." In this sense the theologians of the Middle Ages said that the
minister also acts "in persona ecclesiae," that is to say, in the name
of the whole church and in order to represent her. And in fact, leaving aside
the question of the participation of the faithful in a liturgical action, it is
indeed in the name of the whole church that the action is celebrated by the
priest: he prays in the name of all and in the Mass he offers the sacrifice of
the whole church. In the new Passover, the Church, under visible signs,
immolates Christ through the ministry of the priest. And so, it is asserted,
since the priest also represent the Church, would it not be possible to think
that this representation could be carried out by a woman, according to the symbolism already explained? It is true that the priest represents the Church,
which is the Body of Christ. But if he does so, it is precisely because he first
represents Christ himself who is the Head and Shepherd of the Church. The Second
Vatican Council used this phrase to make more precise and to complete the
expression "in persona Christi." It is in this quality that the priest
presides over the Christian assembly and celebrates the Eucharistic sacrifice
"in which the whole Church offers and is herself wholly offered."

If one does justice to these reflections, one will better understand how
well-founded is the basis of the Church's practice: and one will conclude that
the controversies raised in our days over the ordination of women are for all
Christians a pressing invitation to meditate on the mystery of the Church, to
study in greater detail the meaning of the episcopate and the priesthood and to
rediscover the real and pre-eminent place of the priest in the community of the
baptized, of which he indeed forms part but from which he is distinguished because, in the actions that call for the character of ordination, for the
community he is - with all the effectiveness proper to the sacraments - the
image and symbol of Christ himself who calls, forgives and accomplishes the
sacrifice of the Covenant.

VI - THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD ILLUSTRATED BY THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

It is opportune to recall that problems of sacramental theology, especially
when they concern the ministerial priesthood, as is the case here, cannot be
solved except in the light of Revelation. The human sciences, however valuable
their contribution in their own domain, cannot suffice here, for they cannot
grasp the realities of faith: the properly supernatural content of these
realities is beyond their competence.

Thus one must note the extent to which the church is a society different from
other societies, original in her nature and in her structures. The pastoral
charge in the Church is normally linked to the sacrament of Order: it is not a
simple government, comparable to the modes of authority found in States. It is
not granted by people's spontaneous choice: even when it involves designation
through election, it is the laying on of hands and the prayer of the successors
of the Apostles which guarantee God's choice; and it is the Holy Spirit, given
by ordination, who grants participation in the ruling power of the Supreme
Pastor, Christ (cf. Acts 20:28). It is a charge of service and love: "If you
love me, feed my sheep" (cf. Jn 21:15-17).

For this reason one cannot see how it is possible to propose the admission of
women to the priesthood in virtue of the equality of rights of the human person,
an equality which holds good also for Christians. To this end use is sometimes
made of the text quoted above, from the Letter to the Galatians (3:28), which
says that in Christ there is no longer any distinction between men and women.
But this passage does not concern ministries: it only affirms the universal
calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all. Moreover, and above all,
to consider the ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge its
nature completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry
in the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honor or advantage of the
recipient but for the service of God and the Church; it is the object of a
specific and totally gratuitous vocation: "You did not choose me, no, I
chose you; and I commissioned you..." (Jn 15:16; cf. Heb 5:4).

It is sometimes said and written in books and periodicals that some women
feel that they have a vocation to the priesthood. Such an attraction, however
noble and understandable, still does not suffice for a genuine vocation. In
fact, a vocation cannot be reduced to a mere personal attraction, which can
remain purely subjective. Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which
the Church has received the charge and the control, authentication by the Church
is indispensable here and is a constitutive part of the vocation: Christ chose
"those whom he desired" (Mk 3:13). On the other hand, there is a
universal vocation of all the baptized to the exercise of the royal priesthood
by offering their lives to God and by giving witness for his praise.

Women who express a desire for the ministerial priesthood are doubtless
motivated by the desire to serve Christ and the Church. And it is not surprising
that, at a time when they are becoming more aware of the discriminations to
which they have been subject, they should desire the ministerial priesthood
itself. But it must not be forgotten that the priesthood does not form part of
the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of
Christ and the church. The priestly office cannot become the goal of social
advancement; no merely human progress of society or of the individual can of
itself give access to it: it is of another order.

It therefore remains for us to meditate more deeply on the nature of the real
equality of the baptized which is one of the great affirmations of Christianity:
equality is in no way identity, for the Church is a differentiated body, in
which each individual has his or her role. The roles are distinct and must not
be confused; they do not favor the superiority of some vis-a-vis the others, nor
do they provide an excuse for jealousy; the only better gift, which can and must
be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12:13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are
not the ministers but the saints.

The Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the
greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance, both for
the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of
the true face of the Church.

His Holiness Pope Paul VI, during the audience granted to the undersigned
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation on October 15, 1976, approved this
Declaration, confirmed it and ordered its publication.

Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on
October 15, 1976, the feast of Saint Teresa of Avila.

Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect

Fr Jerome Hamer, O.P. Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary

COMMENTARY ON THE DECLARATION OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF
THE FAITH ON THE QUESTION OF THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

Circumstances and origin of the Declaration

The question of the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood seems to
have arisen in a general way about 1958 after the decision of the Swedish
Lutheran Church in September of that year to admit women to the pastoral office.
this caused a sensation and occasioned numerous commentaries. Even for the
communities stemming from the 16th century Reformation it was an innovation: one
may recall, for example, how strongly the "Confessio Fidei Scotiae" of
1560 accused the Roman Church of making improper concessions to women in the
field of ministry. But the Swedish initiative gradually gained ground among the
Reformed churches, particularly in France, where various National Synods adopted
similar decisions.

In reality, the admission of women to the pastoral office seemed to raise no
strictly theological problem, in that these communities had rejected the
Sacrament of Order at the time of their separation from the Roman Church. But a
new and much more serious situation was created when ordinations of women were
carried out within communities that considered that they preserved the apostolic
succession of Order: in 1971 and 1973 the Anglican Bishop of Hong Kong ordained
three women with the agreement of his Synod; in July 1974 at Philadelphia there
was the ordination in the Episcopal Church of eleven women an ordination
afterwards declared invalid by the House of Bishops. Later on, in June 1975, the
General Synod of the Anglican Church in Canada, meeting in Quebec, approved the
principle of the accession of women to the priesthood and this was followed in
July by the General Synod of the Church of England: Dr Coggan, Archbishop of
Canterbury, frankly informed Pope Paul VI "of the slow but steady growth of
a consensus of opinion within the Anglican Communion that there are no
fundamental objections in principle to the ordination of women to the
priesthood." These are only general principles but they might quickly be
followed by practice, and this would bring a new and serious element into the
dialogue with the Roman Catholic church on the nature of the ministry. It has
provoked a warning, first by the Archbishop for the Orthodox in Great Britain,
Athenagoras of Thyateira, and then, more recently, by Pope Paul VI himself in
two letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Furthermore, the ecumenical sectors
brought the question to the notice of all the Christian denominations, forcing
them to examine their positions of principle, especially on the occasion of the
Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Nairobi in December 1975.

A completely different event has made the question even more topical: this
was the organization under United Nations' auspices of International Women's
Year in 1975. The Holy See took part in it with a Committee for International
Women's Year, which included some members of the Commission for the Study of the
Role of Women in Society and the Church, which had already been set up in 1973.
Ensuring respect for and fostering the respective rights and duties of men and
women leads to reflection on participation by women in the life of society on
the one hand and in the life and mission of the Church on the other. Now, the
Second Vatican Council had already set forth the task: "Since in our times
women have an ever more active share in the whole life of society, it is very
important that they participate more widely also in the various fields of the
Church's apostolate." How far can this participation go?

It is understandable that these questions have aroused even in Catholic
quarters intense studies, indeed passionate ones: doctoral theses, articles in
reviews, even pamphlets, propounding or refuting in turn the biblical,
historical and canonical data and appealing to the human sciences of sociology,
psychology and the history of institutions and customs. Certain famous people
have not hesitated to take sides boldly, judging that there was "no basic
theological objection to the possibility of women priests." A number of
groups have been formed with a view to upholding this claim, and they have
sometimes done this with insistence, as did the conference held in Detroit in
November 1975 under the title "Women in Future: Priesthood Now, a Call For
Action."

The Magisterium has thus been obliged to intervene in a question being posed
in so lively a fashion within the Catholic church and having important
implications from the ecumenical point of view. Archbishop Bernardin of
Cincinnati, President of the USCC, declared on October 7, 1975, that he found
himself "obliged to restate the church's teaching that women are not to be
ordained to the priesthood"; Church leaders, he said, should "not seem
to encourage unreasonable hopes and expectations, even by their silence."
Pope Paul VI himself had already recalled the same teaching. He did so at first
in parenthetical fashion, especially in his address on April 18, 1975 to the members of the Study Commission on the Role of Women in Society and in the
Church and the Committee for the Celebration of International Women's Year:
"Although women do not receive the call to the apostolate of the Twelve and
therefore to the ordained ministries, they are nonetheless invited to follow
Christ as disciples and co-workers...We cannot change what Our Lord did, nor his
call to women." Later he had to make an express pronouncement in his
exchange of letters with Dr Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury: "Your Grace
is of course well aware of the Catholic Church's position on this question. She
holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood for very
fundamental reasons." It is at this order that the Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith has examined the question in its entirety. The
question has been complicated by the fact that on the one hand arguments adduced
in the past in favor of the traditional teaching are scarcely defensible today
and on the other hand the reasons given by those who demand the ordination of
women must be evaluated.

To avoid the rather negative character that must mark the conclusions of such
a study, one could have thought of inserting it into a more general presentation
of the question of the advancement of women. But the time is not ripe for such a
comprehensive exposition because of the research and work in progress on all
sides. It was difficult to leave unanswered any longer a precise question that
is being posed nearly everywhere and which is polarizing attention to the
detriment of more urgent endeavors that should be fostered. In fact, apart from its non-acceptance of the ordination of women, the document points to positive
matters: a deeper understanding of the church's teaching and of the ministerial
priesthood, a call to spiritual progress, an invitation to take on the urgent
apostolic tasks of today. The bishops, to whom the document is primarily
addressed, have the mission of explaining it to their people with the pastoral
feeling that is theirs and with the knowledge they have of the milieu in which
they exercise their ministry.

The Declaration begins by presenting the church's teaching on the question.
This in fact has to be the point of departure. We shall see later how necessary
it is to follow faithfully the method of using "loci theologici."

Tradition

It is an undeniable fact, as the Declaration notes, that the constant
tradition of the Catholic Church has excluded women from the episcopate and the
priesthood. So constant has it been that there has been no need for an
intervention by a solemn decision of the Magisterium.

"The same tradition," the document stresses, "has been
faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East. Their unanimity on this
point is all the more remarkable since in many other questions their discipline
admits of great diversity. at the present time these same Churches refuse to
associate themselves with request directed towards securing the accession of
women to priestly ordination."

Only with some heretical sects of the early centuries, principally Gnostic
ones, do we find attempts to have the priestly ministry exercised by women. It
must be further noted that these are very sporadic occurrences and are moreover
associated with rather questionable practices. We know of them only through the
severe disapproval of which they are noted by Saint Irenaeus in his Adversus
Haereses, Tertullian in De Prescriptione Haereticorum, Firmilian of Caesarea in
a letter to Saint Cyprian, Origen in a commentary on the First Letter to the
Corinthians, and especially by Saint Ephiphanius in his Panarion.

How are we to interpret the constant and universal practice of the church? A
theologian is certain that what the Church does she can in fact do, since she
has the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This is a classical argument found again
and again in Saint Thomas with regard to the sacraments. But what the church has
never done - is this any proof that she cannot do it in the future? Does the
negative fact thus noted indicate a norm, or is it to be explained by historical
and by social and cultural circumstances? In the present case, is an explanation
to be found in the position of women in ancient and medieval society and in
certain idea of male superiority stemming from that society's culture?

It is because of this transitory cultural element that some arguments adduced
on this subject in the paste are scarcely defensible today. The most famous is
the one summarized by Saint Thomas Aquinas: "quia mulier est in statu
subiectionis." In Saint Thomas' thought, however, this assertion is not
merely the expression of a philosophical concept, since he interprets it in the
light of the accounts in the first chapters of Genesis and the teaching of the
First Letter to Timothy (2:12-14). A similar formula is found earlier in the
Decretum of Gratian, but Gratian, who was quoting the Carolingian Capitularies
and the false Decretals, was trying rather to justify with Old Testament prescriptions the prohibition - already formulated by the ancient church - of
women from entering the sanctuary and serving at the altar.

The polemical arguments of recent years have often recalled and commented on
the texts that develop these arguments. They have also used them to accuse the
Fathers of the Church of misogyny. It is true that we find in the Fathers'
writings the undeniable influence of prejudices against women. But it must be
carefully noted that these passages had very little influence on their pastoral
activity, still less on their spiritual direction, as we can see by glancing
through their correspondence that has come down to us. Above all, it would be a serious mistake to think that such considerations provide the only or the most
decisive reasons against the ordination of women in the thought of the Fathers,
of the medieval writers and of the theologians of the classical period. In the
midst of and going beyond speculation, more and more clear expression was being
given to the Church's awareness that in reserving priestly ordination and
ministry to men she was obeying a tradition received from Christ and the
Apostles and by which she felt herself bound.

This is what had been expressed in the form of an apocryphal literature by
the ancient documents of Church discipline from Syria, such as the "Didiscalia
Apostolorum" (middle of the 3rd century) and the Apostolic Constitutions
(end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century) and by the Egyptian collection
of 20 pseudo-apostolic canons that was included in the compilation of the
Alexandrian "Synodus" and translated into many languages. Saint John
Chrysostom, for his part, when commenting on chapter 21 of John, understood well
that women's exclusion from the pastoral office entrusted to Peter was not based
on any natural incapacity, since as he remarks, "even the majority of men
have been excluded by Jesus from this immense task."

From the moment that the teaching on the sacraments is systematically
presented in the schools of theology and canon law, writers begin to deal ex
professo with the nature and value of the tradition that reserved ordination to
men. The canonists base their case on the principle formulated by Pope Innocent
III in a letter of December 11, 1210 to the Bishops of Palencia and Burgos, a
letter that was included in the collection of the Decretals: "Although the
Blessed Virgin Mary was of higher dignity and excellence than all the Apostles,
it was to them, not her, that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven." This text became a "locus communis" for the "glossatores."

As for the theologians, the following are some significant texts: Saint
Bonaventure: "Our position is this: it is due not so much to a decision by
the Church as to the fact that the sacrament of Order is not for them. In this
sacrament the person ordained is a sign of Christ the Mediator." Richard of
Middleton, a Franciscan of the 2nd half of the 13th century: "The reason is
that the power of the sacraments comes from their institution. But Christ
instituted this sacrament for conferral on men only, not women." John Duns
Scotus: "It must not be considered to have been determined by the Church.
It comes from Christ. The Church would not have presumed to deprive the female sex, for no fault of its own, of an act that might licitly have pertained to
it." Durandus of Saint Pourcain: "...the male sex is of necessity for the sacrament. The principal cause of this is Christ's institution...Christ
ordained only men...not even his mother...It must therefore be held that women
cannot be ordained because of Christ's institution."

So it is no surprise that until the modern period the theologians and
canonists who dealt with the question have been almost unanimous in considering
this exclusion as absolute and having a divine origin. the theological notes
they apply to the affirmation vary from "theologically certain" to at
times, "proximate to faith" or even "doctrine of the faith."
Apparently, then, until recent decades no theologian or canonist considered that
it was a matter of a simple law of the church.

In some writers of the Middle Ages however, there was a certain hesitancy,
reported by Saint Bonaventure without adopting it himself and noted also by
Joannes Teutonicus in his gloss on Caus. 27, q.1, c.23. This hesitancy stemmed
from the knowledge that in the past there had been deaconesses: had they
received true sacramental ordination? This problem has been brought up again
very recently. It was by no means unknown to the 17th and 18th century
theologians who had an excellent knowledge of the history of literature. In any
case, it is a question that must be taken up fully by direct study of the texts,
without preconceived ideas; hence the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith has judged that it should be kept for the future and not touched upon
in the present document.

The Attitude of Christ

In the light of tradition, then, it seems that the essential reason moving
the church to call only men to the sacrament of Order and to the strictly
priestly ministry is her intention to remain faithful to the type of ordained
ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the
Apostles. It is therefore no surprise that in the controversy there has been a
careful examination of the facts and texts of the New Testament in which
tradition has seen an example establishing a norm. This brings us to a
fundamental observation: we must not expect the New Testament *on its own* to
resolve in a clear fashion the question of the possibility of women acceding to
the priesthood, in the same way that it does not on its own enable us to give an
account of certain sacraments, and especially of the structure of the sacrament
of Order. Keeping to the sacred text alone and to the points of the history of
Christian origins that can be obtained by analyzing that text by itself would be
to go back four centuries and find oneself once more amid the controversies of
the Reformation. We cannot omit the study of tradition: it is the church that
scrutinizes the Lord's thought by reading Scriptures, and it is the Church that
gives witness to the correctness of its interpretation.

It is tradition that has unceasingly set forth as an expression of Christ's
will the fact that he chose only men to form the group of Twelve. There is no
disputing this fact but it can it be proved with absolute certainty that it was
a question of a deliberate decision by Christ? It is understandable that the
partisans of a change in discipline bring all their efforts to bear against the
significance of this fact. In particular, they object that if Christ did not
bring women into the group of the Twelve, it was because the prejudices of his
time did not allow him to; it would have been an imprudence that would have
compromised his work irreparably. However, it has to be recognized that Jesus
did not shrink form other "imprudences," which did in fact stir up the
hostility of his fellow citizens against him, especially his freedom with regard
to the rabbinical interpretations of the Sabbath. With regard to women his
attitude was a complete innovation; all the commentators recognize that he went
against many prejudices, and the facts that are noted add up to an impressive
total.

For this reason greater stress is laid today on another objection: if Jesus
chose only men to form the group of the Twelve, it was because he intended them
to be a symbol representing the ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel
("You who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones and judge the
twelve tribes of Israel" Mt 19:28; cf. Lk 22:30); and this special motive,
it is added, obviously referred only to the Twelve and would be no proof that
the apostolic ministry should therefore always be reserved to men. It is not a
convincing argument. We may note in the first place how little importance was
given to this symbolism: Mark and John do not mention it. And in Matthew and
Luke this phrase of Jesus about the twelve tribes of Israel is not put in the
context of the call of the Twelve (Mt 10:1-4) but at a relatively late stage of
Jesus' public life when the Apostles have long since been given their
"constitution"; they have been called by Jesus, have worked with him
and been sent on missions. Furthermore, the symbolism of Mt 19:28 and Lk 22:30
is not as certain as is claimed: the number twelve could designate simply the
whole of Israel. Finally, these two texts deal only with a particular aspect of
the mission of the Twelve: Jesus is promising them that they will take part in
the eschatological judgment. Therefore, the essential meaning of their being
chosen is not to be sought in this symbolism but in the totality of the mission
given them by Jesus: "he appointed twelve; they were to be his companions
and to be sent out to preach" (Mk 3:14). As Jesus before them, the Twelve
were above all to preach the Good News (Mk 3:14; 6:12). Their mission in Galilee
(Mk 6:6-13) was to become the model of the universal mission (Mk 12:10; cf. Mt 28:16-20). Within the messianic people the Twelve represent Jesus. That is the
real reason why it is fitting that the Apostles should be men: they act in the
name of Christ and must continue his work.

It has been described above how Pope Innocent III saw a witness to Christ's
intention in the fact that Christ did not communicate to his Mother, in spite of
her eminent dignity, the powers which he gave to the Apostles. This is one of
the arguments most frequently repeated by tradition: from as early as the third
century the Fathers present Mary as the example of the will of Jesus in this
matter. It is an argument still particularly dear to Eastern Christians today.
Nevertheless, it is vigorously rejected by all those who plead in favor of the
ordination of women. Mary's divine motherhood, the manner in which she was
associated with the redeeming work of her son, they say, put her in an altogether exceptional and unique position; and it would not even be fair to her
to compare her with the Apostles and to argue from the fact that she was not
ranked among them. In point of fact these assertions do have the advantage of
making us understand that there are different functions within the Church. The
equality of Christians is in harmony with the complementary nature of their
tasks and the sacramental ministry is not the only rank of greatness not is it
necessarily the highest. It is a form of service of the Kingdom. The Virgin Mary
does not need the increase in "dignity" that was once attributed to
her by the authors of those speculations on the priesthood of Mary that formed a
deviant tendency which was soon discredited.

The Practice of the Apostles

The text of the Declaration stresses the fact that, in spite of the
privileged place Mary had in the Upper Room after the Ascension, she was not
designated for entry into the College of the Twelve at the time of the election
of Matthias. The same hold for Mary Magdalene and the other women who
nevertheless had been the first to bring news of the Resurrection. It is true
that the Jewish mentality did not accord great value to the witness of women, as
is shown by Jewish law. But one must also note that the Acts of the Apostles and
the Letters of Saint Paul stress the role of women in evangelization and in
instructing individual converts. The Apostles were led to take a revolutionary
decision when they had to go beyond the circle of a Jewish community and
undertake the evangelization of the Gentiles. The break with Mosaic observances
was not make without discord. Paul had no scruples about choosing one of his
collaborators, Titus, from among the Gentile converts (Gal 2:3). The most
spectacular expression of the change which the Good News made on the mentality
of the first Christians is to be found precisely in the Letter to the Galatians:
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male
nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:27-28). In spite of
this, the Apostles did not entrust to women the strictly apostolic ministry,
although Hellenistic civilization did not have the same prejudices against them
as did Judaism. It is rather a ministry which is of another order, as may
perhaps also be gathered from Paul's vocabulary in which a difference seems to
be implied between "my fellow workers" and "God's fellow
workers."

It must be repeated that the texts of the New Testament, even on such
important points as the sacraments, do not always give all the light that one
would wish to find in them. Unless the value of unwritten traditions is
admitted, it is sometimes difficult to discover in Scripture entirely explicit
indications of Christ's will. But in view of the attitude of Jesus and the
practice of the Apostles as seen in the Gospels, the Acts and the Letters, the
Church has not held that she is authorized to admit women to priestly
ordination.

Permanent value of this practice

It is the permanency of this negative decision that is objected to by those
who would have the legitimacy of ordaining women admitted. These objections
employ arguments of great variety.

The most classic ones seek a basis in historical circumstances. We have
already seen what is to be thought of the view that Jesus' attitude was inspired
solely by prudence, because he did not want to risk compromising his work by
going against social prejudices. It is claimed that the same prudence was forced
upon the Apostles. On this point too it is clear from the history of the
apostolic period that there is no foundation for this explanation. However, in
the case of the Apostles, should one not take into account the way in which they
themselves shared these prejudices? Thus Saint Paul has been accused of misogyny
and in his Letters are found texts on the inferiority of women that are the
subject of controversy among exegetes and theologians today.

It can be questioned whether two of Paul's most famous texts on women are
authentic or should rather be seen as interpolations, perhaps even relatively
late ones. The first is 1 Cor 14:34-35: "The women should keep silence in
the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate even
as the Law says." These two verses, apart from being missing in some
important manuscripts and not being found quoted before the end of the second
century, present stylistic peculiarities foreign to Paul. The other text is 1
Tim 2:11-14: "I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over
men." The Pauline authenticity of this text is often questioned, although
the arguments are weaker.

However, it is of little importance whether these texts are authentic or not:
theologians have made abundant use of them to explain that women cannot receive
either the power of Magisterium or that of jurisdiction. It was especially the
text of 1 Tim that provided Saint Thomas with the proof that woman is in a state
of submission or service since (as the text explains) woman was created after
man and as the person first responsible for original sin. But there are other
Pauline texts of unquestioned authenticity that affirm that "the head of
the woman is the man" (1 Cor 11:3; cf. 8-12; Eph 5:22,24). It may be asked
whether this view of man, which is in line with that of the books of the Old
Testament, is not at the basis of Paul's conviction and the Church's tradition
that women cannot receive the ministry. Now this is a view that modern society
rejects absolutely and many present day theologians would shrink from adopting
it without qualifying it. We may note however that Paul does not take his stand
on a philosophical level but on that of biblical history: when he describes, in
relation to marriage, the symbolism of love, he does not see man's superiority
as domination but as a gift demanding sacrifice, in the image of Christ.

On the other hand there are prescriptions in Paul's writings which are
unanimously admitted to have been transitory, such as the obligation he imposed
on women to wear a veil (1 Cor 11:2-16). It is true that these are obviously
disciplinary practices of minor importance, perhaps inspired by the customs of
the time. But then there arises the more basic question: since the church has
later been able to abandon prescriptions contained in the new Testament, why
should it not be the same with the exclusion of women from ordination? Here we
meet once again the essential principle that it is the Church herself that, in
different sectors of her life, ensures discernment between what can change and
what must remain immutable. As the Declaration specifies, "When she judges
that she cannot accept certain changes, it is because she knows that she is
bound by Christ's manner of acting. Her attitude, despite appearances, is
therefore not one of archaism but of fidelity; it can be truly understood only
in this light. The Church makes pronouncements in virtue of the Lord's promise
and the presence of the Holy Spirit in order to proclaim better the mystery of
Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich content."

Many of the questions confronting the church as a result of the numerous
arguments put forward in favor of the ordination of women must be considered in
the light of this principle. An example is the following question dealt with by
the Declaration: why will the church not change her discipline, since she is
aware of having a certain power over the Sacraments, even though they were
instituted by Christ, in order to determine the sign or to fix the conditions
for their administration? This faculty remains limited, as was recalled by Pius
XII, echoing the Council of Trent: the Church has no power over the substance of
the sacraments." It is the Church herself that must distinguish what forms
part of the "substance of the sacraments" and what she can determine
or modify if circumstances should so suggest.

On this point, furthermore, we must remember, as the Declaration reminds us,
that the sacraments and the Church herself are closely tied to history, since
Christianity is the result of an event: the coming of the Son of God into time
and to a country, and his death on the Cross under Pontius Pilate outside the
walls of Jerusalem. The sacraments are a memorial of saving events. For this
reason their signs are linked to those very events. They are relative to once
civilization, one culture, although destined to be reproduced everywhere until
the end of time. Hence historical choices have taken place by which the church
is bound, even if speaking absolutely and on a speculative level other choices
could be imagined. This, for instance, is the case with bread and wine as matter
for the Eucharist, for the Mass is not just a fraternal meal but the renewal of
the Lord's Supper and the memorial of his Passion and thus linked with something
done in history.

It has likewise been remarked that in the course of time the Church has
agreed to confer certain ministerial functions that antiquity refused to give
them in the very name of the example and will of Christ. The functions spoken of
are above all the administration of baptism, teaching and certain forms of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

As regards baptism, however, not even deaconesses in the Syriac speaking East
were permitted to administer it and its solemn administration is still a
hierarchical act reserved to bishop, priest and, in accessory fashion, deacon.
When urgently required, baptism can be conferred not only by Christians but even
by unbaptized people whether men or women. Its validity therefore does not
require the baptismal character, still less that of ordination. This point is
affirmed by practice and by theologians. It is an example of this necessary discernment in the Church's teaching and practice, a discernment whose only
guarantee is the Church herself.

As regards teaching, a classical distinction has to be made, from Paul's
Letters onwards. There are forms of teaching or edification that lay people can
carry out and in this case Saint Paul expressly mentions women. These forms
include the charisms of "prophecy" (1 Cor 11:15). In this sense there
was no obstacle to giving the title of Doctor to Saint Teresa of Avila and
Catherine of Siena as it was given to illustrious teachers such as Albert the
Great or Saint Lawrence of Brindisi. Quite a different matter is the official
and hierarchical function of teaching the revealed message, a function that
presupposes the mission received from Christ by the Apostles and transmitted by
them to their successors.

Examples of participation by women in ecclesiastical jurisdiction are found
in the Middle Ages: some abbesses (not abbesses in general, as is sometimes said
in popularizing articles) performed acts normally reserved to bishops, such as
the nomination of parish priests or confessors. These customs have been more or
less reproved by the Holy See at different periods: the letter of Pope Innocent
III quoted earlier was intended as a reprimand to the Abbess of Las Huelgas. But
we must not forget that feudal lords arrogated to themselves similar rights.
Canonists also admitted the possibility of separating jurisdiction from Order.
The Second Vatican Council has tried to determine better the relationship
between the two; the Council's doctrinal vision will doubtless have effects on
discipline.

In a more general way, attempts are being made, especially in Anglican
circles, to broaden the debate in the following way: is the Church perhaps bound
to Scripture and tradition as an absolute, when the Church is a people making
its pilgrim way and should listen to what the Spirit is saying? Or else a
distinction is made between essential points on which unanimity is needed and
questions of discipline admitting of diversity: and if the conclusion reached is
that the ordination of women belongs to these secondary matters, it would not
harm, progress towards the union of the churches. Here again it is the Church
that decides by her practice and Magisterium what requires unanimity, and
distinguishes it from acceptable or desirable pluralism. The question of the
ordination of women impinges too directly on the nature of the ministerial
priesthood for one to agree that it should be resolved within the framework of
legitimate pluralism between Churches. That is the whole meaning of the letter
of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The ministerial priesthood in the light of the mystery of Christ

In the Declaration a very clear distinction will be seen between the
document's affirmation of the datum (the teaching it proposes with authority in
the preceding paragraphs) and the theological reflection that then follows. By
this reflection the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith endeavors
"to illustrate this norm by showing the profound fittingness" to be
found "between the proper nature of the sacrament of Order, with its
specific reference to the mystery of Christ and the fact that only men have been
called to receive priestly ordination." In itself such a quest is not
without risk. However, it does not involve the Magisterium. It is well known
that in solemn teaching infallibility affects the doctrinal affirmation, not the
arguments intended to explain it. Thus the doctrinal chapters of the Council of
Trent contain certain processes of reasoning that today no longer seem to hold.
But this risk has never stopped the Magisterium from endeavoring at all times to
clarify doctrine by analogies of faith. Today especially, and more than ever, it
is impossible to be content with making statements, with appealing to the
intellectual docility of Christians; faith seeks understanding, and it tries to
distinguish the grounds for and the coherence of what it is taught.

We have already discarded a fair number of explanations given by medieval
theologians. The defect common to these explanations is that they claimed to
find their basis in an inferiority of women vis-a-vis men; they deduced from the
teaching of Scripture that woman was "in a state of submission," of
subjection, and was incapable of exercising functions of government.

It is very enlightening to note that the communities springing from the
Reformation which have had no difficulty in giving women access to the pastoral
office are first and foremost those that have rejected the Catholic doctrine on
the sacrament of Order and profess that the pastor is only one baptized person
among others even if the charge given has been the object of a consecration. The
Declaration therefore suggests that it is by analyzing the nature of Order and
its character that we will find the explanation of the exclusive call of men to
the priesthood and episcopate. This analysis can be outlined in three
propositions: 1) in administering the sacraments that demand the character of
ordination the priest does not act in his own name (in persona propria) but in
the person of Christ (in persona Christi); 2) this formula, as understood by
tradition, implies that the priest is a sign in the sense in which this term is
understood in sacramental theology; 3) it is precisely because the priest is a
sign of Christ the Savior that be must be a man and not a woman.

That the priest performs the Eucharist and reconciles sinners in the name and
place of Christ is affirmed repeatedly by the Magisterium and constantly taught
by Fathers and theologians. It would not appear to serve any useful purpose to
give a multitude of quotations to show this. It is the totality of the priestly
ministry that Saint Paul says is exercised in the place of Christ: "We are
acting as ambassadors on behalf of Christ, God, as it were, appealing through
us" - in fact this text form 2 Cor has in mind the ministry of
reconciliation (5:18-20) - "you have received me as an angel of God even as
Christ Jesus" (Gal 4:14). Similarly Saint Cyprian echoes Saint Paul:
"The priest truly acts in the place of Christ" But theological
reflection and the Church's life have been led to distinguish the more or less
close links between the various acts in the exercise of the ministry and the
character of ordination and to specify which require this character for
validity.

Saying "in the name and place of Christ" is not however enough to
express completely the nature of the bond between the minister and Christ as
understood by tradition. The formula "in persona Christi" in fact
suggests a meaning that would bring it close to the Greek expression "mimema
Christou." The word "persona" means a part played in the ancient
theatre, a part identified by a particular mask. The priest takes the part of
Christ, lending him his voice and gestures. Saint Thomas expresses this concept
exactly: "The priest enacts the image of Christ in whose person and by
whose power he pronounces the words of consecration.: The priest is thus truly a
*sign* in the sacramental sense of the word. It would be a very elementary view
of the sacraments if the notion of sign were kept only for material elements.
Each sacrament fulfills the notion in a different way. The text of Saint
Bonaventure already mentioned affirms this very clearly: "the person
ordained is a sign of Christ the mediator." Although Saint Thomas gave as
the reason for excluding women the much discussed one of the state of subjection
(status subiectionis), he nevertheless took as his starting point the principle
that "sacramental signs represent what they signify by a natural
resemblance," in other words the need for that "natural
resemblance" between Christ and the person who is his sign. And still on
the same point, Saint Thomas recalls: "Since a sacrament is a sign, what is
done in the sacrament requires not only the reality but also a sign of the
reality."

It would not accord with "natural resemblance," with that obvious
"meaningfulness,": if the memorial of the Supper were to be carried
out by a woman; for it is not just the recitation involving the gestures and
words of Christ, but an action, and the sign is efficacious because Christ is
present in the minister who consecrates the Eucharist, as is taught by the
Second Vatican Council, following the Encyclical "Mediator Dei."

It understandable that those favoring the ordination of women have made
various attempts to deny the value of this reasoning. It has obviously been
impossible and even unnecessary for the Declaration to consider in detail all
the difficulties that could be raised in this regard. Some of them however are
of interest in that they occasion a deeper theological understanding of
traditional principle. Let us look at the objection sometimes raised that it is
ordination - the character - not maleness, that makes the priest Christ's
representative. Obviously, it is the character, received in ordination, that
enables the priest to consecrate the Eucharist and reconcile penitents. But the
character is spiritual and invisible (res et sacramentum). On the level of the
sign (sacramentum tantum) the priest must both have received the laying on of
hands and take the part of Christ. It is here that Saint Thomas and Saint
Bonaventure require that the sign should have natural meaningfulness.

In various fairly recent publications attempts have been made to reduce the
importance of the formula "in persona Christi" by insisting rather on
the formula "in persona Ecclesiae." For it is another great principle
of the theology of sacraments and liturgy that the priest presides over the
liturgy in the name of the church and must have the intention of "doing
what the Church does." Could one say that the priest does not represent
Christ, because he first represents the Church by the fact of his ordination?
The Declaration's reply to this objection is that. quite the contrary, the
priest represents the Church precisely because he first represents Christ
himself, who is the Head and Shepherd of the church. It indicates several texts
of the Second Vatican Council that clearly express this teaching. Here there may
well be in fact one of the crucial points of the question, one of the important
aspects of the theology of the church and the priesthood underlying the debate
on the ordination of women. When the priest presides over the assembly, it is
not the assembly that has chosen or designated him for this role. The Church is
not a spontaneous gathering. As its name of "ecclesia" indicates, it
is an assembly that is convoked. It is Christ who calls it together. He is the
head of the Church and the priest presides "in the person of Christ the
Head" (in persona Christi Capitis). That is why the Declaration rightly
concludes "that the controversies raised in our days over the ordination of
women are for all Christians a pressing invitation to meditate on the mystery of
the church, to study in greater detail the meaning of the episcopate and the
priesthood and to rediscover the real and pre-eminent place of the priest in the
community of the baptized of which he indeed forms part but from which he is
distinguished because, in the actions that call for the character of ordination,
for the community he is - with all the effectiveness proper to the sacraments -
the image and symbol of Christ himself who calls, forgives, and accomplishes the
sacrifice of the Covenant."

However, the objectors continue: it would indeed be important that Christ
should be represented by a man if the maleness of Christ played an essential
part in the economy of salvation. But they say, one cannot accord gender a
special place in the hypostatic union: what is essential is the human nature -
no more - assumed by the Word, not the incidental characteristics such as the
sex or even the race which he assumed. If the Church admits that men of all
races can validly represent Christ, why should she deny women this ability to
represent him? We must first of all reply, in the words of the Declaration, that
ethnic differences "do not affect the human person as intimately as the
difference of sex." On this point biblical teaching agrees with modern
psychology. The difference between the sexes however, is something willed by God
from the beginning, according to the account in Genesis (which is also quoted in
the Gospel), and is directed both to communion between persons and to the
begetting of human beings. And it must be affirmed first and foremost that the
fact that Christ is a man and not a woman is neither incidental nor unimportant
in relation to the economy of salvation. In what sense? Not of course in the
material sense as has sometimes been suggested in polemics in order to discredit
it but because the whole economy of salvation has been revealed to us through
essential symbols from which it cannot be separated and without which we would
be unable to understand God's design. Christ is the new Adam. God's covenant
with men is presented in the Old Testament as a nuptial mystery, the definitive
reality of which is Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. The Declaration briefly
presents the stages marking the progressive development of this biblical theme,
the subject of many exegetical and theological studies. Christ is the Bridegroom
of the Church whom he won for himself with his blood, and the salvation brought
by him is the New Covenant: by using this language, Revelation shows why the
Incarnation took place according to the male gender and makes it impossible to
ignore this historical reality. For this reason, only a man can take the part of
Christ, be a sign of his presence, in a word "represent" him (that is,
be an effective sign of his presence) in the essential acts of the Covenant.

Could one do without this biblical symbolism when transmitting the message,
in contemplating the mystery and in liturgical life? To ask this, as has been
done in certain recent studies, is to call into question the whole structure of
Revelation and to reject the value of Scripture. It will be said, for example
that "in every period the ecclesiae community appeals to the authority it
has received from its founder in order to choose the images enabling it to
receive God's revelation." This is perhaps to fail even more profoundly to
appreciate the human value of the nuptial theme in the revelation of God's love.

The ministerial priesthood in the mystery of the Church

It is also striking to note the extent to which the questions raised in the
controversy over the ordination of women are bound up with a certain theology of
the Church. We do not of course mean to dwell on the excessive formulas which
nonetheless sometimes find a place in theological reviews. An example is the
supposition that the primitive Church was based on the charisms possessed by
both women and men. Another is the claim that "the Gospels also present
women as ministers of unction." On the other hand, we have already come
across the question of the pluralism that can be admitted in unity and seen what
its limits are.

The proposal that women should be admitted to the priesthood because they
have gained leadership in many fields of modern life today seems to ignore the
fact that the Church is not a society like the rest. In the Church, authority or
power is of a very different nature, linked as it normally is with the
sacrament, as is underlined in the Declaration. Disregard of this fact is indeed
a temptation that has threatened ecclesiological research at all periods: every
time that an attempt is made to solve the Church's problems by comparison with
those of states, or to define the Church's structure by political categories,
the inevitable result is an impasse.

The Declaration also points out the defect in the argument that seeks to base
the demand that the priesthood be conferred on women on the text of Galatians
3:28, which states that in Christ there is no longer any distinction between man
and woman. For Saint Paul this is the effect of baptism. The baptismal
catechesis of the Fathers often stressed it. But absolute equality in baptismal
life is quite a different thing from the structure of the ordained ministry.
This latter is the object of a vocation within the Church, not a right inherent
in the person.

A vocation within the Church does not consist solely or primarily in the fact
that one manifests the desire for a mission or feels attracted by an inner
compulsion. Even if this spontaneous step is made and even if one believes one
has heard as it were a call in the depths of one's soul, the vocation is
authentic only from the moment that it is authenticated by the external call of
the Church. The Holy Office recalled this truth in its 1912 letter to the Bishop
of Aire to put an end to the Lahitton controversy. Christ chose "those whom
he desired" (Mk 3:13).

Since the ministerial priesthood is something to which the Lord calls
expressly and gratuitously, it cannot be claimed as a right, any more by men
than by women. Archbishop Bernardin's declaration of October 1975 contained the
sound judgment: "it would be a mistake...to reduce the question of the
ordination of women to one of injustice as is done at times. It would be correct
to do this only if ordination were a God- given right of every individual; only
if somehow one's human potential could not be fulfilled without it. In fact,
however, no one, male or female, can claim a `right' to ordination. And, since
the episcopal and priestly office is basically a ministry of service, ordination
in no way `completes' one's humanity."

The Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ends
by suggesting that efforts in two directions should be fostered, efforts from
which the pastors and faithful of the Church would perhaps be distracted if this
controversy over women's ordination were prolonged. One direction is in the
doctrinal and spiritual order: awareness of the diversity of the roles in the
Church, in which equality is not identity, should lead us - as Saint Paul
exhorts us - to strive after the one gift that can and should be striven after, namely love (1 Cor 12-13). "The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not
the ministers but the saints," says the Declaration. This expression
deserves to be taken as a motto.

The other direction for our efforts is in the apostolic and social order. We
have a long way to go before people become fully aware of the greatness of
women's mission in the Church and society, "both for the renewal and
humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true
countenance of the Church." Unfortunately, we also still have a long way to
go before all the inequalities of which women are still the victims are
eliminated, not only in the field of public, professional and intellectual life,
but even within the family.